Bannon Suggests Making High Earners Fund Tax Cut On Working Class

[Mom MD]

What I'd like to do is cut spending.  Barring that, taxes need to be collected to pay for that spending, hopefully in amounts large enough not to leave my kids in the hole of paying for your and my generation's profligacy.     

So how do we raise that revenue?   Are we talking philosophically, or in the real world?  Philosophically,  I prefer a flat personal income tax, with limited deductions, coupled with a judicious program of tariffs  -  and no corporate income taxes at all.  But in the real world, we have a progressive tax structure with the highest corporate income tax rates in the western world.   And partisans on both sides who won't cut deals unless there's something in it for them.   

So how do we get to where we need to be,  which IMO is a tax structure that satisfies our revenue needs while encouraging economic growth?   Well,  to my mind that best way of stimulating growth HERE AND NOW is to stop penalizing successful companies with a far-too-high corporate income tax.   As others have correctly pointed out, it's just a conduit for higher consumer prices.    But if the revenues from the corporate income tax are taken off the board (and assuming arguendo that spending can't be cut), what makes up for them?    Who do you tax instead?  Why not the rich?   Those who are productive can incorporate.  Those who aren't, let 'em dig deeper.   What matters to me is the growth that can be triggered by cutting corporate taxes.  That will benefit both you and me.   

Can we engage in an honest discussion for once?  Just once?  What taxes would YOU raise to make up the revenue lost by eliminating or reducing the corporate income tax?     

You haven't defined rich.  I am in an upper income bracket and have no option to incorporate.  You have dodged the question    How much of my labor are you entitled to?  My solution is to pass a balanced budget amendment stop paying drug addicts and welfare queens to sit around as long as they vote every 2 years get rid of unconstitutional  and wasteful federal deprtmemts and let the government live within its means the way I have to.

I already give more than 50% of my income to taxes.  How much more do you think the government should be allowed to steal from me?  I don't expect a straight answer no tax loving liberal will ever define rich or what my 'fair share' should be

[Mom MD]

Cram it with the bullying.    My comment about folks being lucky was in the context of a health care financing system that's employer based.   You are indeed lucky if you have good employer-provided health insurance.   Because millions of us work far harder than you do,  ma'am,  and have only the crapola coverage afforded by Medicaid or ObamaCare.   Or no coverage at all.   

Would you like to go head to head on how hard people work?  You have no idea how hard @XenaLee works.  I don't know too many people who work harder than I do so put up or shut up

[Sanguine]

@Jazzhead, I have long suspected that you only read what you want to read.  Which obviously leads to questions about your motives in posting here.  The "taxing the rich" idea has been repeatedly and conclusively debunked on a number of threads on this forum, and I'm pretty sure that a number of them have been addressed directly to you.

Hmmmm.   Questions still stand.  Too hard to answer, Jazz?

[XenaLee]

Would you like to go head to head on how hard people work?  You have no idea how hard @XenaLee works.  I don't know too many people who work harder than I do so put up or shut up

He didn't give a damn how hard I worked to get that job with corporate-employer-based healthcare.  He's a typical "you didn't build that" leftist in my humble opinion. 

[Jazzhead]

Of course you do.  You are both liberals who think they are entitled to other peoples stuff

I'm a conservative who subscribes to the quaint notion that the expenses of government need to be paid for.   

[txradioguy]

Hmmmm.   Questions still stand.  Too hard to answer, Jazz?

[txradioguy]

I'm a conservative who subscribes to the quaint notion that the expenses of government need to be paid for.   

No real conservative advocates the Liberal position that to fund corporate tax rates we need to raise the tax rates on "the rich".

[Mom MD]

I'm a conservative who subscribes to the quaint notion that the expenses of government need to be paid for.   

Thanks  I needed a good laugh!  I have not seen you take one conservative position on this board.  And someone who thinks that government excess should be paid for by confiscatory taxes on its citizen rather than forcing government to live within its means is no conservative 

[Jazzhead]

He didn't give a damn how hard I worked to get that job with corporate-employer-based healthcare.  He's a typical "you didn't build that" leftist in my humble opinion.

So you're one of the lucky ones?   Great - so stop complaining.   Lots of folks work harder  than you (or me) and have crap coverage.   Do you give a damn about folks like that?  Or do they lack your sainted virtue?       

[Jazzhead]

Thanks  I needed a good laugh!  I have not seen you take one conservative position on this board.  And someone who thinks that government excess should be paid for by confiscatory taxes on its citizen rather than forcing government to live within its means is no conservative

Your lack of reading comprehension is not my concern. 

[XenaLee]

Dishonest bullying is, well,  boring.   Still, dishonesty deserves to be corrected.   My comment about folks being "lucky" was in the context of a health care financing system that's employer based.   You are indeed lucky if you have good employer-provided health insurance.  Because millions of us work far harder than you do,  ma'am,  and have only the crapola coverage afforded by Medicaid or ObamaCare.
   Or no coverage at all.   

And labeling someone disagreeing with you as "bullying" and dishonest is just more of the ssdd leftie BS that you espouse here on a daily basis.  You call a lot of people liars, in fact.  Methinks that you're the one lying here.  In fact.... I'm certain of it.

As for the millions of you that work harder than I do (and how the hell would you know that, Einstein?)...  you sound exactly like Barack Hussein Obama.   Not that I'm surprised, mind you.

[INVAR]

I'm a conservative who subscribes to the quaint notion that the expenses of government need to be paid for.   

THAT is a bold-faced lie.  Your own posts and vain efforts to portray yourself as such reveal you to be nothing of the sort you claim to be.

Why not the rich?   Those who are productive can incorporate.  Those who aren't, let 'em dig deeper.

No better identifier of a Big Government Liberal Statist/Communist than those who think like that.

[XenaLee]

So you're one of the lucky ones?   Great - so stop complaining.   Lots of folks work harder  than you (or me) and have crap coverage.   Do you give a damn about folks like that?  Or do they lack your sainted virtue?       

Yes, Barack.  Sure, Barack.   Go back to your damned vacation.

[Mom MD]

Your lack of reading comprehension is not my concern.

You have not given a straight answer to any question posed to you.  You exist here to spout liberal positions and stir the pot.  My comprehension is just fine and I am through wasting time replying to you.  Have a good day.   Oh and after  working 49 hours in the last 4 days I'm headed back to work to make more money for the leeches and hope I have enough left to live on

[Smokin Joe]

Dishonest bullying is, well,  boring.   Still, dishonesty deserves to be corrected.   My comment about folks being "lucky" was in the context of a health care financing system that's employer based.   You are indeed lucky if you have good employer-provided health insurance.   Because millions of us work far harder than you do,  ma'am,  and have only the crapola coverage afforded by Medicaid or ObamaCare.   Or no coverage at all.   

How about if you work hard, get good grades, learn your profession, pay attention, and apply to and are employed by companies which offer insurance as a benefit, you get employer based health insurance?

If you don't get employer based health insurance, you have the option of shopping around for an employer who will pay you enough to get your own catastro...oh sh*t. Right, Obamacare wiped those plans off the map with their coverage requirements.

It isn't "luck" either way. The former is hard work and a little planning.  The latter is the Federal Government jumping in to make things more "fair" and making FUBAR out of something that was covering more people before they started losing jobs and insurance plans because of the requirements of a law passed by the Party of Unintended Consequences. Luck? Oh, hell no. Competence in the first part, incompetence on the part of the Government, the people who spent billions on a website that didn't work, and have gone downhill from there.

But I'd consider us all "Lucky" if Congress would gather it's testicles and vote to repeal the ACA.

[XenaLee]

How about if you work hard, get good grades, learn your profession, pay attention, and apply to and are employed by companies which offer insurance as a benefit, you get employer based health insurance?

If you don't get employer based health insurance, you have the option of shopping around for an employer who will pay you enough to get your own catastro...oh sh*t. Right, Obamacare wiped those plans off the map with their coverage requirements.

It isn't "luck" either way. The former is hard work and a little planning.  The latter is the Federal Government jumping in to make things more "fair" and making FUBAR out of something that was covering more people before they started losing jobs and insurance plans because of the requirements of a law passed by the Party of Unintended Consequences. Luck? Oh, hell no. Competence in the first part, incompetence on the part of the Government, the people who spent billions on a website that didn't work, and have gone downhill from there.

But I'd consider us all "Lucky" if Congress would gather it's testicles and vote to repeal the ACA.

 

And.... I would consider all of us "Lucky" if leftists and/or Democrats were kept out of power for the next fifty years.  Only then might we have a chance to recover from the damage they've already done to us.

[mystery-ak]

Your lack of reading comprehension is not my concern.

Knock it off Jazz...you are on thin ice as it is..

[Smokin Joe]

I'm a conservative who subscribes to the quaint notion that the expenses of government need to be paid for.   

There are two ways to meet a budget.

The one I have become most familiar with in the last couple of years is go over the budget and cut expenses.

Government hasn't even had a budget, much less cut costs, even though maintaining current revenue and dissolving the programs which are beyond the scope of any sane interpretation of the Constitutional Authority of the Federal Government would likely pay off the DEBT in our lifetimes (and I'm an old fart). 

The other one (not always available to us Citizens) is to make more money.

For short term problems the judicious use of credit may be in order, with a plan to pay it off before money is borrowed. That is a stopgap, however, and not a long-term solution.

[txradioguy]

There are two ways to meet a budget.

The one I have become most familiar with in the last couple of years is go over the budget and cut expenses.

Government hasn't even had a budget, much less cut costs, even though maintaining current revenue and dissolving the programs which are beyond the scope of any sane interpretation of the Constitutional Authority of the Federal Government would likely pay off the DEBT in our lifetimes (and I'm an old fart). 

The other one (not always available to us Citizens) is to make more money.

For short term problems the judicious use of credit may be in order, with a plan to pay it off before money is borrowed. That is a stopgap, however, and not a long-term solution.

@Smokin Joe

IMO...If we're ever going to see real cost cuts and budget reductions we've got to get DC to stop using their voodoo math when creating a budget...and that would require them to stop the use of baseline budgeting and screaming that only getting a three percent raise in spending for a project when they asked for 10 is somehow a seven percent cut.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

IMO...If we're ever going to see real cost cuts and budget reductions we've got to get DC to stop using their voodoo math when creating a budget...and that would require them to stop the use of baseline budgeting and screaming that only getting a three percent raise in spending for a project when they asked for 10 is somehow a seven percent cut.

LOL! "Democrat Math".
The only other place I have seen it is unscrupulous "sales" where prices are increased just before the 'sale', then "slashed" to a smaller increase for the unwary deal hunter.
A mere 3% increase would be seen as a loss. Hard to keep up with under reported inflation that way.

[XenaLee]

LOL! "Democrat Math".
The only other place I have seen it is unscrupulous "sales" where prices are increased just before the 'sale', then "slashed" to a smaller increase for the unwary deal hunter.
A mere 3% increase would be seen as a loss. Hard to keep up with under reported inflation that way.

And unfortunately, the dishonest left can get away with their fuzzy math since they have successfully managed to dumb down most of the masses that even they claim are too stupid to figure it out.  (See: Gruber)

[Smokin Joe]

And unfortunately, the dishonest left can get away with their fuzzy math since they have successfully managed to dumb down most of the masses that even they claim are too stupid to figure it out.  (See: Gruber)

No argument here. Not since a group of us who were advanced math students landed in an Algebra II class taught by a guy who couldn't work the problems (High School), and who for political reasons, would not be fired nor replaced, have I seen teachers get so much wrong. Fractions and percentages seem to be a real bugaboo for them.

[INVAR]

LOL! "Democrat Math".
The only other place I have seen it is unscrupulous "sales" where prices are increased just before the 'sale', then "slashed" to a smaller increase for the unwary deal hunter.
A mere 3% increase would be seen as a loss. Hard to keep up with under reported inflation that way.

The 'math' being used by the Beast in D.C. is a violation of economic laws. As with all immutable laws - the consequences for violating them is destructive and painful.  Because Kick-The Can and keep spending well beyond this nation's ability to repay is going to exponentially crush everything and everyone who has not fleeced the public and made arrangements to sit out the conflagration on some remote island somewhere fully stocked up for the next century or so.

The ever-shrinking Producers are not going to sit idle when 80 - 90% of their income is taken from them just to keep existing spending levels where they are (with no baseline budgeting  increases). The Beast can continue to print money out of thin air and tax the very air we breathe and it will not stop the consequences this nation is going to suffer from coming.

Except to say the longer they kick the can down the road, the more horrific and destructive the consequences will be.

Every civilization and Republic that came to ruin before us will not compare to what we are about to suffer.  We can pretend that day will never come.

But immutable laws like gravity - cannot be broken.  Thrust and lift can keep an aircraft afloat and thus defy the law of gravity for a time - but, when economic fuel to keep the engines thrusting runs out - it's plummet time as the law of gravity (and economics) asserts itself.

The ride down is horrifying.

The impact... final and total.

[txradioguy]

The 'math' being used by the Beast in D.C. is a violation of economic laws. As with all immutable laws - the consequences for violating them is destructive and painful.  Because Kick-The Can and keep spending well beyond this nation's ability to repay is going to exponentially crush everything and everyone who has not fleeced the public and made arrangements to sit out the conflagration on some remote island somewhere fully stocked up for the next century or so.

The ever-shrinking Producers are not going to sit idle when 80 - 90% of their income is taken from them just to keep existing spending levels where they are (with no baseline budgeting  increases). The Beast can continue to print money out of thin air and tax the very air we breathe and it will not stop the consequences this nation is going to suffer from coming.

Except to say the longer they kick the can down the road, the more horrific and destructive the consequences will be.

Every civilization and Republic that came to ruin before us will not compare to what we are about to suffer.  We can pretend that day will never come.

But immutable laws like gravity - cannot be broken.  Thrust and lift can keep an aircraft afloat and thus defy the law of gravity for a time - but, when economic fuel to keep the engines thrusting runs out - it's plummet time as the law of gravity (and economics) asserts itself.

The ride down is horrifying.

The impact... final and total.

I would consider it a huge win for the people if we could at the very least stop these Omnibus budget bills from being the law of the land and actually put some teeth back into the individual committees and let them set the budgets for the areas they preside over.

[XenaLee]

No argument here. Not since a group of us who were advanced math students landed in an Algebra II class taught by a guy who couldn't work the problems (High School), and who for political reasons, would not be fired nor replaced, have I seen teachers get so much wrong. Fractions and percentages seem to be a real bugaboo for them.

That's probably why they came up with "common core math".... so they could make it up as they go along.